Requisitos materiales

The previous section has provided an overview of Higher Education, its composition and trends. Attention is now turned to the theoretical model of employability which underpins this study. The first stage in this is to present a review of employability in terms of its emergence and evolution. Though it could be argued that the concept of employability as one where individuals are flexible in their approach to employment pre-dates industrial times (Bagshaw, 1997), the focus here is on more recent history to retain a manageable scope for this research. As such, the concept of employability is traced from early in the twentieth century (de Grip et al, 2004), and has evolved to occupy a central position in economic and education policy debate (McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005; Lees, 2002).

Gazier’s work is widely cited in literature as offering an overview of the development of employability (de Grip et al, 2004; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005) and as such it is pertinent to capture the key points here. Gazier (1999) distinguishes three specific waves of debate about employability, encapsulating seven definitions (depicted E1-E7 below). These three waves are summarised here:

Early 20th century

Dichotometic employability (E1) – whereby people are defined as employable or not. This binary concept of employability, emerging in the UK and US, and historically the oldest (de Vries S., Grundemann R. & van Vuuren T, 2001) distinguishes between those able and willing to work, and those not able to work because of age, ability or family, and in need of welfare.

1950s and 1960s

This second wave was precipitated by the introduction of quantitative measures to determine degrees of employability. Socio-medical employability (E2) refers to the gap between the characteristics/abilities of the disadvantages (be that physical, social or mental impairment) and what is required by the labour market. Manpower policy employability (E3) again focuses on the

37

gap separating individuals ‘more or less’ from regular employment, but the population is extends to all potential workers. Flow employability (E4) is how Gazier defines the emergence of a focus on demand and the availability of employment opportunity within the economy.

Late 1970s, 1980s & 90s

Expected labour market performance employability (E5) looks at employability in terms of quantifiable measures determined by policy interventions, for example hours worked, days employed etc. Initiative employability (E6) suggests a more dynamic definition, focussed on the individual developing transferable skills and using their networks to become more flexible within the workforce. Interactive employability (E7) retains a focus on the individual’s responsibilities in maintaining their employability but recognises the impact of others, opportunities and the labour market.

This suggests a broader scope to the concept of employability than that of the acquisition of skills. Hillage & Pollard (1998) suggest an individual’s employability requires a balance of four components. These are assets (baseline-basic skills and attributes, intermediate – generic occupational skills and attributes, and high level-those which contribute to effective performance); deployment (having the ability to make effective use of assets e.g. developing a career strategy); presentation (being able to articulate assets to a potential employer) and context (personal and external factors which impact on potential to work). This broadening of the concept concurs with Gazier’s (1999) definition of interactive employability, suggesting employability is more the shared responsibility of policy makers, employers and individuals (de Grip et al, 2004). To this group HEIs should be added as stakeholders when looking at the employability of graduates, since the first three components in Hillage & Pollard’s (1998) model, may be informed by the student experience.

There is criticism that too great a focus exists on the individual’s accountability for their failure to be employed. McQuaid & Lindsay (2005:206) suggest Gazier’s concept of ‘interactive employability’ has been hijacked to some extent by economists and Governments, to promote

38

policies focussed on getting individuals into work. They advance this point suggesting the patchy success of compulsory (by the State) interventions are indicative of a failure to address employability in the broader sense ‘derived from, and affected by individual characteristics, and circumstances, and broader external (social, institutional and economic)factors that influence a person’s ability to get a job’.

Where this leads, in the context of this study, is recognition of employability as a broad concept, beyond a collection of skills an individual must acquire. There is more at stake beyond an individual able, or unable, to get a job, as noted by de Vries, Grundermann & Van Vuuren (2001) who suggest employers should be investing in the employability of their workforce because this enables maximisation of the existing skill base, as well as enhancing the appeal of the organisation to potential new recruits. King (2003) advances this argument suggesting that employers should embrace graduates’ desire to enhance their employability, as this can be channelled into the organisation to facilitate succession planning. This builds on an earlier notion proposed by Bagshaw (1997) of employability as a mutually reciprocal relationship, one in which the organisation creates strategic interventions to support and develop employees, who in turn embrace those opportunities and seek to develop their competencies in line with business needs. As such, self-development is attuned to the organisation’s development. In terms of postgraduate education, simply considering employability in terms of an individual student’s ability to secure employment appears short-sighted and blinkered, undermining the importance of the perspective of other stakeholders. This concept of stakeholders in higher education who have an input into higher education is revisited and developed in section 2.9.